Legal requirement or not attributing the image source is always the right thing to do, especially when the source is distinguished enough to add weight to the image. Cat-five - talk22:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source was already attributed. As I said, that extra information would be a good addition, but was not necessary by law or even by our guidelines. You're making a mountain out of a molehill here, and, as I'm sure many would readily attest, I'm normally the first to complain about this kind of sourcing/licensing concern. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked for my opinion on attribution. The image need not be attributed, either on the image page or in the article, because it is public domain in the US due to its copyright being expired (and/or being a work of a US Federal Government agent). However, it is of course good practice to do so. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support retouched 2: When I was in school my best friend and I were enamoured with Ernest Hemingway and pasted pictures of him to our textbook covers. Seven years on and my tastes haven't changed, :) Portrait does have some minor issues, but it's been retouched okay and I think its EV, age, and irreplaceability compensate. Maedin\talk16:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]